shellfish and the environment - washington sea...

1

Shellfish and the Environment

P. Sean McDonald, University of Washington [email protected]

Honoring the data: a review of recent studies on ecological consequences of geoduck aquaculture in southern Puget Sound

•  Long-lived clam •  100+ years, >3kg

•  Soft bottom habitat •  California to Alaska

•  Intertidal culture •  ~$20 million market

Photo credit: PS McDonald

Biology & aquaculture

Introduction

2

•  Year 1: Planting •  Placing structures

and juvenile clams

•  Years 2-5: Grow out •  Removal of structures

•  Years 5-7: Harvest •  Liquefaction

•  Extraction of geoducks Photo credit: PS McDonald

Culture cycle

Introduction

PVC tube placement

Geoduck seed



and juvenile clams



•  Extraction of geoducks

Culture cycle

Introduction

3

Net removal

Nets and tubes



and juvenile clams




Culture cycle

Introduction

Harvest disturbance

Harvesting

Introduction

Photo credit: PS McDonald, G VanBlaricom


and juvenile clams




Culture cycle

4

Opposition groups

Introduction

Initial concern

•  Lack of peer-review science

•  Heated debate •  User group conflict

Photo credit: nogeoduckfarm.com & Kitsap Sun

Public meeting

•  The environmental effects of structures commonly used in the aquaculture industry to protect juvenile geoducks from predation;

•  The environmental effects of commercial harvesting of geoducks from intertidal geoduck beds, focusing on current prevalent harvesting techniques, including a review of the recovery rates for benthic communities after harvest;

•  The extent to which geoducks in standard aquaculture tracts alter the ecological characteristics of overlying waters while the tracts are submerged, including impacts on species diversity, and the abundance of other benthic organisms;

•  Baseline information regarding naturally existing parasites and diseases in wild and cultured geoducks, including whether and to what extent commercial intertidal geoduck aquaculture practices impact the baseline;

•  Genetic interactions between cultured and wild geoduck,including measurements of differences between cultured geoducks and wild geoducks in terms of genetics and reproductive status; and

•  The impact of the use of sterile triploid geoducks and whether triploid animals diminish the genetic interactions between wild and cultured geoducks.

SSHB 2220

Introduction

5

•  The environmental effects of structures commonly used in the aquaculture industry to protect juvenile geoducks from predation;

•  The environmental effects of commercial harvesting of geoducks from intertidal geoduck beds, focusing on current prevalent harvesting techniques, including a review of the recovery rates for benthic communities after harvest;

•  The extent to which geoducks in standard aquaculture tracts alter the ecological characteristics of overlying waters while the tracts are submerged, including impacts on species diversity, and the abundance of other benthic organisms;

•  Baseline information regarding naturally existing parasites and diseases in wild and cultured geoducks, including whether and to what extent commercial intertidal geoduck aquaculture practices impact the baseline;

•  Genetic interactions between cultured and wild geoduck,including measurements of differences between cultured geoducks and wild geoducks in terms of genetics and reproductive status; and

•  The impact of the use of sterile triploid geoducks and whether triploid animals diminish the genetic interactions between wild and cultured geoducks.

SSHB 2220

Introduction

Introduction

0-2 years 2-5 years 5-7 years

Outplanting Grow-out Harvest

6

McDonald, P.S., A.W.E. Galloway, K.C. McPeek, and G.R. VanBlaricom. In press. Effects of geoduck (Panopea generosa Gould, 1850) aquaculture gear on resident and transient macrofauna communities of Puget Sound, Washington, USA. Journal of Shellfish Research.

Introduction



Gear effects study

Introduction



McPeek, K.C., P.S. McDonald, and G.R. VanBlaricom. 2014. Aquaculture disturbance impacts the diet but not ecological linkages of a ubiquitous predatory fish. Estuaries and Coasts. Published online 8 November 2014.

Foraging effects study

7

VanBlaricom, G.R., J.L. Eccles, J.D. Olden, and P.S. McDonald. In press. Ecological effects of the harvest phase of geoduck clam (Panopea generosa Gould, 1850) aquaculture on infaunal communities in southern Puget Sound, Washington USA. Journal of Shellfish Research.

Introduction



Harvest effects study

Introduction

•  Industry scale •  Temporal/spatial

•  Realistic conditions

•  Press disturbance •  Planting

•  Pulse disturbance •  Harvest

Study sites

Photo credit: Google Earth

Press disturbance

Pulse disturbance

8

Introduction

Study sites

Photo credit: Google Maps

Stratford

Rogers

Fisher

Foss

Manke

Chelsea-Wang

Harvest effects sites

Gear effects sites

Base m

ap ©M

icrosoft

10 km

Foraging effects sites

Rolfs

Study design: Before-After-Control-Impact

Introduction

Photo credit: G VanBlaricom

Shore

Water

9

•  Disturbance - ”…discrete event in time that disrupts ecosystem, community, or population structure and changes resources, substratum availability, or the physical environment.” (Pickett & White 1985)

•  Resilience - measured by the magnitude of disturbance that can be absorbed before the system reorganizes. (Gunderson 2000)

Project approach

Introduction

Storm Landslide Photo credit: mdancause, Island guardian,

Are transient & resident communities affected by geoduck outplanting?

Gear effects study

Introduction Gear effects

10


Gear effects study



Gear effects study


11

Measuring seastar

Methods: SCUBA

•  Diver pairs •  Transect tool

•  Culture/reference •  45-m transects •  Summer(monthly)

winter (bi-monthly)

•  Species ID •  Number and size

SCUBA transects

Photo credit: G Jensen, J Eggers


Methods: SCUBA

Photo credit: G Jensen,


12

Shoreline

Salmon smolt

Methods: shore survey

•  Single observer •  5-minute scan

•  Culture/reference •  50-m transect •  March-July

•  Species ID •  Number and size •  behavior Photo credit: PS McDonald, Sacramento Bee


Culture plot Reference plot

50-150 m

Shore survey

SCUBA survey


13

Sample collection

Lab analysis

Methods: coring

•  Culture/reference •  Ten samples each •  Before-during-after

•  Lab processing

•  Species ID •  Number



Transient data

Methods: analysis

•  Transient data •  nMDS •  Anosim •  SIMPER

•  Resident data •  PerMANOVA •  HMD •  GLMM

Photo credit: J Eggers, K McPeek

Resident data


14

Results: transients abundance


Pre- gear

gear present

Post- gear



15

seaperches other nearshores

flatfishes gunnels sculpins

crabs hermit crabs

moon snails seastars cockles

Photo credit: L Thomson, PS McDonald, M Gieselman, M Adams, J Grose, N Elder

other demersals

other inverts

Results: transients functional groups


(628) (530)



16

(628) (530)

Anosim P=0.761



(628) (530) (1243) (579)

Anosim P=0.761



17

(483) (628) (530) (1243) (579)

Anosim P=0.035

Anosim P=0.761



(483) (628) (530) (1243) (579)

Anosim P=0.035

Anosim P=0.761



18

SIMPER Group Contribution Cumulative crab: 39.93% 39.93%

hermit crab: 15.09% 55.02%

flatfish: 14.86% 69.88%

seastar: 8.23% 78.10%

sculpin: 4.90% 83.00%

cockle: 3.46% 86.47%

nearshore fish:3.33% 89.80%

snail : 3.25% 93.05%

Photo credit: L Thomson, PS McDonald, M Gieselman


Results: transients dissimilarity

(628) (530) (1243) (579)

Anosim P=0.035

Anosim P=0.761



19

(628) (530) (1243) (483) (579) (509)


Anosim P=0.035

Anosim P=0.761

Anosim P=0.789


7.8 7.1 5.5 7.4 5.7 5.8


Shannon-Weiner Index considers: •  Richness - # of species present

•  Relative abundance of each species

•  Higher values = higher diversity

Results: transients community diversity

20

7.8 7.1 5.5 7.4 5.7 5.8


Results: transients community diversity


Results: residents community

Stratford Gear added

Gear removed

Sampled March 2009 to Oct 2011

(19 events in 30 months)

21


Results: residents community

•  PerMANOVA •  Month, Plot, Phase •  No detectable

aquaculture effect

•  HMD test •  No detectable

aquaculture effect

Pre-gear

Gear-present

Post-gear

Results: residents individual response

Photo credit: J Cordell, Wikipedia


22

crustaceans polychaetes mollusc nemertean

Pre-gear

Gear-present

Post-gear





Pre-gear

Gear-present

Post-gear



none none none none none none


23


Pre-gear

Gear-present

Post-gear




- - - + none none



Pre-gear

Gear-present

Post-gear




- - - + none

+

none

none none none none none


24

•  Transients •  Community affected by gear but

recovers to reference condition

•  Residents •  Community largely unaffected •  No consistent pattern in individual taxa

response •  Few taxa did not recover/increase

following abatement of disturbance


Summary


Foraging effects

Pacific staghorn sculpin

•  Ecologically Relevant •  Abundant •  Opportunistic •  Diet reflects local prey

composition

Photo credit: A Fuller, Divebums.com

25

Do sculpin demonstrate fidelity for geoduck culture plots or adjacent areas? Does aquaculture affect sculpin diet and/or trophic linkages?


Foraging effects

Foraging effects study

Measuring sculpin

Methods: fidelity

•  Mark-recapture •  Monthly beach

seine •  Ebb tide

•  Data •  Tagged, weighed,

measured •  Release time/site

Beach seining



Foraging effects

26

Tissue dissection

Methods: food habits

•  Field collection •  Sculpin & likely prey

•  Diet analysis •  Prey ID & number

•  Tissue processed •  Isotope analyses

Prey samples

Photo credit: K McPeek, A Fuller


Foraging effects

K. McPeek (all)


Foraging effects

Results: fidelity

•  Tagged >1000 sculpin/plot

•  Recapture rate •  Low (~5%)

•  High along-shore fidelity •  1 stray Tagged sculpin

Sorting the catch

27

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1

Cultu

red

Reference

Cultu

red

Reference

Cultu

red

Reference

Cultu

red

Reference

Cultu

red

Reference

May June July August September

Prop

or:o

n SHRI POLY OTH OCRUST ISO CRAB CORO BIV AMPH


Foraging effects

Results: food habits

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1

Cultu

red

Reference

Cultu

red

Reference

Cultu

red

Reference

Cultu

red

Reference

Cultu

red

Reference


Prop

or:o

n

SHRI POLY OTH OCRUST ISO CRAB CORO BIV AMPH


Foraging effects


28

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1

Cultu

red

Reference

Cultu

red

Reference

Cultu

red

Reference

Cultu

red

Reference

Cultu

red

Reference


Prop

or:o

n SHRI POLY OTH OCRUST ISO CRAB CORO BIV AMPH


Foraging effects


0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1

Cultu

red

Reference

Cultu

red

Reference

Cultu

red

Reference

Cultu

red

Reference

Cultu

red

Reference


Prop

or:o

n

SHRI POLY OTH OCRUST ISO CRAB CORO BIV AMPH


Foraging effects


29


Foraging effects


July (Anosim P<0.01) September (Anosim P<0.01)


Foraging effects



30


Foraging effects




Foraging effects

Results: trophic links

Photo credit: Divebums.com

31


Foraging effects


Trop

hic

leve

l

Carbon source



Foraging effects


Carbon source

Trop

hic

leve

l


32


Foraging effects


Carbon source

Trop

hic

leve

l



Foraging effects


Carbon source

Trop

hic

leve

l


33


Foraging effects


Carbon source

Trop

hic

leve

l


•  Site fidelity •  Sculpin have strong along-shore fidelity

•  Food habits •  Aquaculture associated with changes in

sculpin prey composition

•  Trophic linkages

•  No detectable effect on carbon source •  No detectable effect on trophic level


Foraging effects

Summary

34

Are resident communities affected by geoduck harvest?

Harvest effects study


Foraging effects

Harvest effects

Sample collection

Lab analysis

Methods: coring

•  Culture/reference •  Ten samples each •  Before-during-after

•  Lab processing

•  Species ID •  Number



Foraging effects

Harvest effects

35

Methods: analysis

•  Resident data •  PerMANOVA •  HMD •  GLMM

Photo credit: M Langness, PS McDonald


Foraging effects

Harvest effects


Results: community analyses

Foraging effects

Harvest effects

Harvest

Sampled July 2008 to August 2010

(17 events)

36


Results: community analyses

•  PerMANOVA •  Month, Plot, Phase •  No detectable

aquaculture effect

•  HMD test •  No consistent

differences among plots

Foraging effects

Harvest effects


Pre-gear

Gear-present

Post-gear

Results: resident individual response



- - - + none

+

none



Foraging effects

Harvest effects

37


Pre-gear

Gear-present

Post-gear




Harvest-present

Post-Harvest

- - - + none

+

none



Foraging effects

Harvest effects


Pre-gear

Gear-present

Post-gear




Harvest-present

Post-Harvest

- - - + none

+

none


+ - + none + -


Foraging effects

Harvest effects

38


Pre-gear

Gear-present

Post-gear




Harvest-present

Post-Harvest

- - - + none

+

none


+ - + none +

+ none +

-

- none none


Foraging effects

Harvest effects

•  Harvest effects •  Community largely unaffected •  No consistent pattern in individual taxa

response •  Few taxa did not recover/increase

following abatement of disturbance


Summary

Foraging effects

Harvest effects

39

geomaps.wr.usgs.gov gis.ess.washington.edu

Study areas

Approximate maximum boundary,

most recent glaciation

Photo credit: UW, USGS

Disturbance revisited


Foraging effects

Harvest effects Implications

Photo credit: mdancause, Island guardian, G VanBlaricom

Disturbance revisited


Foraging effects


40

•  Cumulative effects in time •  Multiple cycles in one area

•  Cumulative effects in space •  Multiple culture areas in close proximity

•  Indirect effects •  Potential effects translated through food

web

Cumulative/indirect


Foraging effects


Loop analysis

EwE model

•  Ecosystem models •  Evaluate alternative

management

•  Qualitative models •  Organize system

knowledge

•  Solicit stakeholder input

Cumulative/indirect

Images: J Reum


Foraging effects


41

•  Funding Sources •  Washington Sea Grant •  Washington State Legislature •  Washington DNR •  Washington ECY •  UW Royalty Research Fund •  US Geological Survey •  NOAA Aquaculture

•  Growers & property owners •  Taylor Shellfish Farms •  Chelsea shellfish Farms •  Seattle Shellfish •  Mr. & Mrs. Stratford •  Mr. & Mrs. Adams •  The Foss Family •  Brian Phipps •  Kent Kingman •  Tom Bloomfield •  John Lenz •  Shirley Wang •  Jeff Fisher

Thank you!

Washington Sea Grant, P. Sean McDonald, and G. VanBlaricom

shellfish and the environment - washington sea...

Documents